Next Article in Journal
Discovery of Aphid Lethal Paralysis Virus in Vespa velutina and Apis cerana in China
Next Article in Special Issue
Andean Flora as a Source of New Repellents against Insect Pests: Behavioral, Morphological and Electrophysiological Studies on Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Unexpected Diversity of Wolbachia Associated with Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
Potential for Acanthoscelides obtectus to Adapt to New Hosts Seen in Laboratory Selection Experiments
Open AccessArticle

The Compared Efficiency of the Traditional Method, Radiography without Contrast and Radiography with Contrast in the Determination of Infestation by Weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) in Maize Seeds

1
Department of Agriculture, Universidade Federal de Lavras-UFLA, P.O. Box 3037, Lavras 37200-000, Minas Gerais, Brazil
2
Department of Entomology, Universidade Federal de Lavras-UFLA, P.O. Box 3037, Lavras 37200-000, Minas Gerais, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2019, 10(6), 156; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10060156
Received: 28 February 2019 / Revised: 26 April 2019 / Accepted: 1 May 2019 / Published: 1 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Stored Product Insect Pest Management)
Technologies that increase safety and efficiency, while facilitating and streamlining the work of seed analysts, are increasingly required by the seed industry. X-ray image analysis is a technique that has been used in the analysis of grain and seeds because it is fast, accurate and non-destructive. The traditional method to verify the presence of insect damage in seeds involves manual cutting of the seeds, which endangers the safety of the analyst and is time-consuming and repetitive work that leads to visual fatigue. The objective of this study was to compared the efficiency of radiographic analysis with and without contrast in the determination of infestation by Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), at different stages of development, in maize seeds, compared to the traditional method required by seed legislation, which consists of cutting and visual evaluation. Seeds were evaluated regarding the presence of eggs/oviposition signs, larvae, pupae, adult insects, insect damage in five infestation periods (5, 18, 33 and 35 days after infestation), while evaluating the total number of seeds infested, comparing the three methods. For characterization of the oviposition stage, the use of contrast was best at all times of infestation. For the larval stage, there was no difference between the evaluation methods; however, at 18 days, larger infestations were observed by the traditional method. At 5 days, the identification of pupae was better by the traditional method and radiography without contrast, while for the identification of adult insects the best method was the use of radiography without contrast. The characterization of the level of infestation with maize weevil damage was best verified using contrast radiography. Radiographic analysis is efficient in the detection of damage caused by S. zeamais in maize seeds. This method of radiographic analysis (with or without contrast) is thus an auxiliary tool to assess the damage and presence of S. zeamais in maize seeds. View Full-Text
Keywords: levels of infestation; seed damage; sampling; storage; Zea mays levels of infestation; seed damage; sampling; storage; Zea mays
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Moreira de Carvalho, M.L.; Rezende Leite, E.; Carvalho, G.A.; França-Silva, F.; Bernardes de Andrade, D.; Marques, E.R. The Compared Efficiency of the Traditional Method, Radiography without Contrast and Radiography with Contrast in the Determination of Infestation by Weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) in Maize Seeds. Insects 2019, 10, 156.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop